Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2007]JRC223

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

26^th November 2007

The Attorney General

-v-

Christopher Eugene Curtin

Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court following guilty pleas to the following charges:

Age:  47.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Counts 1 and 2 on the indictment relate to an incident that took place between 1988 and 1990, when the victim (a girl) was aged between 8 and 9 years old and when Curtin was in his late 20s.

The victim and her sisters had finished school and were walking through the estate where they lived.  The victim stopped and stroked a cat.  Curtin approached them.  He had a camera and a rucksack with him and he took some photographs of the girl.  He then went with the victim to her house and, having convinced the mother of the victim that he was a photographer working for a children's magazine, he obtained the mother's permission to take the girl to a studio in St Helier to take some photographs of her.

Curtin then took the victim into a secluded alleyway within the grounds of Highlands College.  He showed her pornographic magazines and pulled his trousers down.  He removed his pants and asked her if she wanted to "lick it like a lollypop" (i.e. perform oral sex on him), which she did not do.  He then removed her trousers and touched her vagina with his hands for a couple of seconds before performing oral sex on her for approximately 15 minutes.  Curtin then stopped, crunched up a Polo mint in his mouth and then continued to perform oral sex on the victim, who lay prone, frightened by the experience.  Having stopped performing oral sex on the girl she pulled her trousers back up.  Curtin then told her to feel his penis and forced her to hold his penis for approximately 10 seconds.  He then threatened the girl that he would hurt her mother if she told anyone about the incident, before leaving the girl on her own in the alleyway.

The assault had a significant impact on the victim psychologically.  As she grew up she became severely depressed, self-harmed and attempted to commit suicide.  She made a formal complaint about the assault in March 2007 after a States of Jersey Police press appeal and when a work colleague of hers identified Curtin.

Although he pleaded guilty to these offences, Curtin maintained his innocence in relation to them.

On arresting Curtin in relation to counts 1 and 2 at his home address, police officers seized a laptop computer owned by him.  The hard drive of the laptop was analysed by a computer forensics investigator employed by the police and was found to contain some 3,397 images, 312 were found to be of Level 4 (images depicting penetrative sexual activity between adults and children) and 13 were of Level 5 (images depicting sadism or bestiality involving children).  Curtin admitted in interview that he had been accessing child porn websites and viewing indecent images of children on a daily basis for the 3-4 weeks prior to his arrest.  It was accepted by the Crown that Curtin had simply located and viewed these images (they had been saved automatically to the hard drive of his laptop) and he had not saved, filed, reproduced or distributed them.

Curtin was assessed by the probation service as continuing to present a high risk of sexual re-offending and at high risk of harm to children.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas.  Curtin was a victim of sexual abuse himself when aged 14 years old and living at a residential home.  Offences giving rise to counts 1 and 2 pre-dated the treatment received by Curtin for offences committed by him in 1995 and no further sexual offences committed by him since receiving that treatment.

Previous Convictions:

Numerous convictions for a variety of offences between 1974 and 1999.  Previous convictions in 1991 and 1995 for offences of indecent assaults on young girls.  Conviction in 1997 for offences of indecent exposure.  As a result of his conviction in 1995 (for offences of indecent assault for which he received a probation order) Curtin spent 14 months at the Wolvercote Clinic, a specialist residential facility for sex offenders.  He left Wolvercote against recommendation.  Having been convicted in 1997 (for offences of indecent exposure) he spent a further 4 weeks at Wolvercote.

Conclusions:

Total: 5 years' imprisonment.

Forfeiture of laptop computer sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

M. St. J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate C. M. Fogarty for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE COMMISSIONER:

1.        The facts of this case have been graphically outlined by the Crown Advocate.  We also have read most carefully the witness statement that the victim made to the police on 18^th May.  The victim was between 8 and 9 years old when the offences of indecent assault and the act of gross indecency occurred.  She is now 27.

2.        That the victim has suffered emotionally as a result of the incidents is very clear.  She suffered from severe depression and has been referred to a psychologist and a psychiatrist.  She has suffered self harm and apparently has attempted suicide.  We have read most carefully her witness statement.

3.        The assault on this little girl involved forcing her to look at pornographic photographs, performing oral sex on her and causing her for a short time to hold his penis.

4.        As a result of her recognising and reporting Curtin to the police, a search was carried out at Curtin's home address that he shares with another man.

5.        Miss Fogarty has said that since his last offence, and he has attended the Wolvercote Clinic in 1997, he hasn't committed any further offences.  That is not the point.  The affect on the young lady has been horrendous and he must be punished for that.

6.        When the search was made at his home over 3,000 images of a pornographic nature had been viewed.  It appears that during that period that he had owned the laptop he had looked at images for about 3-4 weeks and he viewed little else other than child pornography and about 10% was of the very worst kind.  Now it is clear from what Advocate Fogarty has told us that the images were not downloaded.  He did not store the images deliberately, but he was, as I have said, viewing almost constantly for 3 weeks.  It is self evident to us that those who view the images of child pornography must encourage the making of such images in the future.

7.        He has received treatment and this has clearly not worked.  We accept the point that Miss Fogarty has made with reference to the English cases, but it is not an argument on possession.  Curtin is charged with an offence under Article 2(1)(a) and while we entirely agree with Miss Fogarty that he only had access to the images, the law is, according to Mr O'Connell, clear and we agree that the sentence passed on him is right.  The Social Enquiry Report concludes with these words:

"It must be acknowledged that, given his record of previous offending against children, he will always present a risk of harm to children and will need to be managed under multi-agency risk management arrangements."      

We have to say it is entirely up to Curtin and those who are able to assist him while in prison whether he avails himself of this opportunity which may be his last chance.

8.        We follow the conclusion of the Crown on Count 1; 3½ years' imprisonment, Count 2; 2 years' imprisonment, and Count 3; 18 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1 and 2.  That is a total of 5 years' imprisonment.

9.        We order the forfeiture of the laptop computer under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Forfeiture Orders (Jersey) Law 2001.

Authorities

Criminal Justice Forfeiture Orders (Jersey) Law 2001.